gatnerd said:

I'd place a lot more emphasis on Cruise Missile Submarines (like the 154 Tomahawk carrying Ohios) and long range Stealth Bombers with LRASM then I would on small arms.

Now that sounds like a formula for starting a nuclear war.  

gatnerd said:

Australia retaking the Soloman islands to prevent the establishment of a Chinese military base in their area

From your link above: Sogavare ... also condemned the “glaring hypocrisy” of critics of his deal with China.

Good chap, but his words would fall on the deaf ears.

gatnerd said:

US sends ground forces to support Taiwan during an Invasion by China

Do they already have teleport booths in Taiwan, to drop those NGSW-armed GIs right into the front of invading PLA units and bypassing that silly stretch of water around the island which is much easier to control by China than by US?

Now back to the NGSW

Even if the 6.8mm NGSW outclasses (on paper, at least) the Chinese 5.8mm small arms system, Chinese units may have some weapons that their US counterparts lacking, i.e. relatively long-range 35mm one-man semi-auto GLs, very lightweight 12.7mm MGs (their latest fifty, the QLZ-171, weights on its bipod as much as the M240 Bravo, about 12 kilogram), and quite a lot of other man-portable equipment that could work on a small-unit type tactics that would make NGSW 'advantages' much less relevant. IMHO, of cause.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhFjUliSvVc

inrange mud test on the sig spear

no problems dust cover closed

dies when dust cover open (classic piston problem)

ig its meh didn't expect much

Except Australia and the US would never invade the Solomon islands, unlike your country which is invading Ukraine right now on flimsy pretexts, typical Russian lying and deflection, accuse your enemies of doing what you're doing 

Gr1ff1th said:

invading Ukraine right now on flimsy pretexts, typical Russian lying and deflection, accuse your enemies of doing what you're doing 

A-stan 2001? Iraq 2003? Libya 2011?

Oh, sorry, its all Russian lies. Back to my dark corner.

I have been trying to warn people about these guns for quite awhile.

The chicoms have definitely stepped up their small arms game big time

Also for everyone wondering about the guns Mac is talking about as well as some other guns he didn't mention. Here some new chicom guns starting with the 12kg 12.7x108 gun then their new 5.8 and 762 NATO belt feds.

It's an extremely impressive crop of weapons.

And also a concerning one since people here should recognize specific features off various guns.

Gr1ff1th said:

Except Australia and the US would never invade the Solomon islands...

History does not support your assertion.

1962 - The US threatened to invade Cuba.

1983 - The US invaded Grenada.

1989 - The US invaded Panama.

2001 - The US invaded Afghanistan.

2003 - The US invaded Iraq.

Let's summarise where we are with NGSW: 

1. BELIEFS DRIVING NGSW COMPETITION

• Need for increased range and lethality 

“Current weapons and calibres lack the required lethality growth against protected individual targets. NGSW will incorporate improved ergonomics, signature suppression capabilities, data-power transfer, new rail designs, a lightweight ammunition case and increased performance at range.” [Major Wyatt Ottmar, US Army NGSW Program Officer (October 2020)]

• Overall concept of adopting a single ammunition type used across all squad weapons offers worthwhile operational, logistical, and training benefits

• Recognition that units equipped with only 5.56x45 mm weapons will be overmatched by enemies equipped with 7.62x54 mm Russian, 7.62x51 mm NATO, and 5.8x42 mm Chinese.

• Recognition of the fact that potential adversaries using Level II/ Level IV body armour 

• Recognition by US Army that 5.56x45 mm has reached the limit of its development potential 

• Aspiration that any new ammunition option should not increase the dismounted soldier’s weight burden

• Aspiration for NGSW to provide 7.62 mm performance in a 5.56 mm package, but...

2. THE COMPETITION ITSELF

• NGSW requirement evolved into a requirement to penetrate Level 4 body armour at 600 metres

• NGSW requirement defines an ammunition standard that essentially matches .300 Winchester Magnum - a sniping cartridge

• The perception among many NATO armies observing NGSW that ammunition specification is that 6.8x51 mm is way over-powered

• Resulting muzzle energy / velocity produces significantly higher recoil making automatic fire harder to control 

• Shooting training will be more onerous, especially for soldiers of smaller stature and females

• Packing 3,000 fps / 914 m/sec performance in a 7.62-sized cartridge rather than in a larger cartridge results in very high chamber pressures (80,000 psi same as M1A2 Abrams' 120 mm gun) 

• High chamber pressures accelerate barrel wear and reduce parts longevity (requirement is 5,000 rounds, (SIG is achieving 10,000 rounds, legacy weapons deliver barrel life of at least 20,000 rounds, real issue is unexpected parts breakage)

• High chamber pressures require more complex four-piece ammunition which is more expensive to produce

• Increased system weight versus legacy 5.56 mm squad weapons adds to the dismounted soldier’s weight burden

• Larger ammunition reduces the number of rounds that can be carried for a given weight

• System through-life costs likely to be much higher 

• SIG did a great job with the XM5 and XM250 - the best option won

• The most significant element of NGSW is the Vortex XM157 fire control optic - this is superb and similar systems will be rolled-out across NATO

So, True Velocity cartridges for everything except the Special Purpose ammunition? That's what it sounds like.

And I bet Emeric could squeeze more performance out of 5.56x45 if he was allowed to.